Re: Lol...if i didnīt know the critics and GAīs score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Anyway, to kind of move away from this for a minute, I'd like to recommend the following interviews with Nolan to you (or anyone else) if you haven't heard them already. They're a good listen if you have the free time, and they're probably the most in-depth interviews Nolan gave on each movie (he's been doing interviews with Elvis Mitchell for each of his films since Memento).

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

If nothing else, it's some interesting insight into his thought process on the three movies. You mentioned wanting to be a fly on the wall for them coming up with the story for TDKR, this is probably the closest thing out there (perhaps until the new featurette on the collector's edition). He's a little more open and detailed about his thought process here than he is in most other interviews about the movies.

Re: Lol...if i didnīt know the critics and GAīs score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

If nothing else, it's some interesting insight into his thought process on the three movies. [...] He's a little more open and detailed about his thought process here than he is in most other interviews about the movies.

All very interesting, but only like 90 seconds of the TDKR one were relevant to the topic(s) here - wonder if there's any interview with him elaborating on the 8 year gap and related decisions a bit more?

The little I've found so far:

http://filmcomment.com/article/cinem...-scott-foundasAt the end of The Dark Knight on some level he senses that maybe he’s become the villain of the story, that maybe he has too much blood on his hands, and that Batman should go away and leave Gotham alone. Those are dark areas that no Batman movie really ventured into before,
What.

Okay, anyway, so at 4:43-5:53, he says that the time gap and the movie's outset have been put there to "show the consequences" of what came before, in order to continue the story instead of making a "new Batman episode".
But didn't someone here quote another interview with him where he said something about it being more of a surprise move?

http://www.**************.com/fansit.../news/?a=50116 What the FONT??! It was **************... I'll look into it. '^' .......... jesuswatIt's really all about finishing Batman's and Bruce Wayne's story. We left him in a very precarious place at the end of The Dark Knight. His reputation in tatters, on the run. And I think perhaps surprisingly for some people, out story picks up quite a bit later. He's not in great state. He's frozen in time, he's hit a brick wall.
Nah, not really it, the basic statement's still the same.

Well, regardless - that pretty much seems to be the kind of sentiment the movie itself is also communicating while you're watching it: the "yea, that's what was supposed to happen, what did you expect?" kind of feel.
What, 8 years? Well sure, they began winning over the mafia back then, so it must've taken a few years to finish the job and have people get used to it a bit. What, you thought showing the process with its trials and tribulations would've been more dramatic? Huh?
Yea, of course he's retired - at the end of TDK! Or what did you think was that final shot about (disclaimer: what if he retired later, whatever)? What injuries, hello?! Look at what he's doing every night, plus getting shot at and falling onto Harvey Dent there, sure he's got no cartilage!
Yea, his love interest died, what would you do? Of course he's a recluse. Okay, it was after his globe failed, but come on, of course he was gonna get into philantrophy after Batman, stupid question.
Expecting something exciting and slightly more ambiguous with that letter cliffhanger? Or at least some pay-off to the irony of him doing that while Batman was setting up a conspiracy himself? Pfft, nah, burned the letter, reveals to him, Bruce gets pissored. What did you think was gonna happen? Perfectly natural progression is my second name!

And so on. If it had actually felt somewhat subversive, surprising, deconstructive, it probably would've been better, but with the kind of intentions as expressed by Nolan in that interview up there, it really rather feels like the movie "failed" to really understand its predecessor, particularly what gave its ending all the impact and excitement (incl. for the sequel). You watch the movie, wondering, will it really need a sequel, will I want to watch tha-, wait **** yeah stop making Inception and give it us now! Can't wait to se-, ohhhhh well okay... still cool I guess?

Because really, while both Nolan (in this interview) and the "movie" seem to think that they're being all about natural development, that really applies only halfway at best.
Yea, technically it can all be reasonably traced back to TDK, but several deciding things also happened inbetween (things not given much if any narrative weight) that ultimately led to the current situation more directly.

And really, the tension of the Dent conspiracy aside, and even that was given kind of an awkward, half-arsed resolution by
1) giving it merely a marginal, almost "accidental" (i.e. Bane finds letter) role in driving the Gothamites back into chaos, as the protagonists had feared*, and
2) relocating what little role it played there on a yet another, completely new, artificial and not even properly explained plot device, namely the "Dent Act", instead of what had mattered, and why the conspiracy was made at all, back then: the population's psychological need to have a heroic role model to inspire them to clean up their act,

... anyway, this IS a new story basically. Not a continuation of the previous plot, but more like how it comes back to haunt them after it's pretty much over. And even not itself, but more like completely new plot devices connected to it... indirectly.
Does he find "closure", overcome his mourning for Rachel in some way? Nah - the rug is pulled from under his feet when his existence is destroyed and Alfred leaves, and then he's basically on the market again. Understandable? Yea, kind of, but a new story
Bane is the second death star basically, he doesn't count, and, what else is there that's "continued"? Yes, the theme of escalation, i.e. Batman's actions causing harsher reprisals, now with the LoS, which is actually pretty clever, mixed with a new theme of "benevolent tools turning into weapons", what else? Not much really.

*The way their fears of a social collapse come true here (still having to do with Dent... but not really) also resembles how Batman's retirement, set up as early as the ending of Begins, ended up being a different one in Rises in terms of motivation - still kinda because Batman isn't needed (or is he), but mostly really because of the depression.

Now, is it cool as a new story? Yea... certainly much better than as a direct, natural follow-up "honoring the weight of its predecessors", but there's still internal flaws in its execution (some sloppy plotting + awkward performances) that make it inferior to those stories imo - but that's not the topic right now is it

Re: Lol...if i didnīt know the critics and GAīs score for this movie...

A lot happened between BB and TDK too, and not all of it was how the ending of BB pointed to. "I'll look into it." Eh, not so much, actually you won't take it that seriously and continue focusing on the mob. Then there's the introduction of Dent as the new DA. Unbeknownst to us during BB, this guy was earning his stripes at Internal Affairs investigating corrupt cops and now he's this political superstar that everyone believes in. Oh, and Gordon now runs a Major Crimes Unit full of cops that Dent investigated. Boom instant tension between Gordon and the new guy. Oh, and Dent is dating Rachel too, so instant tension between Bruce and the new guy. Also, for some reason every gang in Gotham has been pooling its money together.

All of that stuff is great though. Allowing for these off-screen developments makes the world feel so much larger in scope and keeps the story ahead of us. All of the movies are standalone films that complete a thematic trilogy. Yes, there are strong plot threads connecting them, but each film really is a different genre so some plot points become more/less important in each film. I get that 8 years was too much for some people to swallow and I respect that, but it seemed to fit the epic tone they were going for to me. The events and aftermath of TDK becomes a part of the history of this world, rather than platform for continued plot developments. They respected TDK by not making TDK 2.

Re: Lol...if i didnīt know the critics and GAīs score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

A lot happened between BB and TDK too,

Gee, haven't we been there already?

Quote:

and not all of it was how the ending of BB pointed to.

When it comes to pointing out flaws in TDK, one thing must be clear: there's a LOT of them. And not least thanks to its hype, people have taken their fair share of bites at probably every single one of them over the course of the past 5 years, so when we have a discussion like this one here, the main question can only be: are the flaws equally bad, or is there like a major qualitative gap?
Especially given how it also abandons a lot of the stuff from BB in favor of its own new plotlines, even though the question still remains whether that's good, bad or neutral... with TDK/TDKR, our general point here is that it's bad/disappointing.

So with the basics explaned, let's start shall we:

Quote:

"I'll look into it." Eh, not so much, actually you won't take it that seriously can continue focusing on the mob.

Would it have been better if Batman's (obviously unsuccessful, and why not? Joker and all) attempts to pin down the Joker inbetween the movies had been somehow confirmed, or even given some attention? Yea, probably. But the damage is very small, especially the way the "him again" scene swiftly pulls one into the action.
Apparently he did "look into it", but the Joker just kept slipping away everytime... chasing him was like chasing a ghost etc.
Would it have improved the overall suspense if they had added a line like this somewhere around the area? Again, probably yes - and again, the loss isn't all that big. Didn't find him, strikes again, "him again", you're in.

The "entire mob" line, of course, is the part where you being wrong comes in: they weren't closing in on the "entire mob" back when debriefing on that rooftop.

Quote:

Then there's the introduction of Dent as the new DA. Unbeknownst to us during BB, this guy was earning his stripes at Internal Affairs investigating corrupt cops and now he's this political superstar that everyone believes in.

Dent is obviously the new main character whose arc arguably becomes the central conflict of the movie, and a lot of things can be (and have been) said about him:
-how convenient his nickname, coin-tossing habit appears to coincide with both one half of his face and one half of his coin getting burned in the explosions, and the somewhat choppy/rushed manner in which these gimmicks are set up prior to that.
-his related IA backstory.
-his sudden introduction as the new white knight Marty Stu on the scene.
-an arguably swift turn to the dark side that may not make too much sense / tries to make too much sense with psychological trauma and confusion to fall back on when it doesn't, and the coin/nickname gimmicks that come into play there aren't helping.
-somewhat forced sounding debate between the three at the climax.

Given all that, and even conceding that all of those were demerits dragging the movie down - the way he's introduced to Gordon and Batman, and how he gets into their circle after initial distrust and anger from either side, is still more natural and believable than what was done with, in descending order, Miranda Tate and John Blake.
As a counterbalance to that, though, neither of those have anywhere this much forced important-sounding gimmickry being blown at the viewer's face, and their "arcs" aren't quite as important or pretentious, so there's less to damage. Do you think that? Or does Dent's arc do all that gimmicky **** with such a commitment and disarming impact that it wins out in the end (and in that case, by a looooong way...)?

Quote:

Oh, and Gordon now runs a Major Crimes Unit full of cops that Dent investigated.

And now we're really entering discovered territory.
Yes, these cops are new, but the "corrupt cops (Gordon has to work with)" image already exists - and they had to be new (and merely suspected) in order for their betrayal to work*. Would a couple more (perhaps even one of these) corrupt or suspect cops in BB have helped the seamlessness? Sure - but once again, damage is minimal at worst.

*The real problem with this subplot being that Dent happily gets in the car with one of them, and that after getting escorted by the other one. And then he's angry at Gordon... yea. Y u overlook plot hole?!

Quote:

Boom instant tension between Gordon and the new guy.

The only problem with that being Dent's side of the coin, namely his IA backstory. Once that's set, yea, he's been going against corruption (just like he does now), Gordon's got corrupt creeps, seeing tension coming a mile ahead.
He could've been a lawyer and found problems with those cops; those cops might've been Flass who Gordon's still working with somehow - just details; the conflict automatically comes from their respective roles as the "white knight" and the pragmatic cop working in the dirt.

Quote:

Oh, and Dent is dating Rachel too, so instant tension between Bruce and the new guy.

Somewhat forced? Dent's even more of a Marty Stu now? Maybe, but hey - two idealistic DAs in the same town, seems plausible. And introduced smoothly, too.

Know what's the real problem with this subplot, once again overlooked by your humble self? Bruce's immature behavior. He's "fine" with their relationship, but still can't stop talking to Rachel about finally getting together WHILE SHE AND HARVEY ARE STILL TOTALLY DATING. "Remember what you said back there? Remember?" ****ing stupidest subplot in the whole movie.

Quote:

Also, for some reason every gang in Gotham has been pooling its money together.

Um yea whatever. They're just doing it now, with Lau, aren't they? Gordon tracking the mob money seems to be the real new plot device here...

Quote:

All of that stuff is great though.

Maybe it's great, maybe it's not. If it's not, the damage certainly is minimal (again, save possibly for the Dent stuff, he's a bit of a bigger deal).
A general stylistic thing running through TDK (and, to a lesser extent, the first half of Rises) is its swift and “economic” way of setting up and establishing things (that may become important later) – the way Würtz and Ramirez are pretty much only given minimal attention before their betrayal suddenly comes like out of nowhere, how Dent is silently abducted off-screen and it takes quite a while for it to be revealed to the audience, too; the camera quickly sweeping sideways just to catch him overwhelming Maroni’s bodyguard, or Crane showing his face for like a second, blink and you miss it; and the less said about that hostage bus at the hospital, the better.
So, is it rushed and sloppy? Or does it create a “larger world”? But does it disorient and alienate while doing so? Me personally, I dig it, for adding to the unsettling, ambiguously surreal atmosphere of the movie. It boosts the “breathlessness” of its frantic downward spiral, and hey – is the best way to distract from how awfully little sense some of those elements really make

Haste, and Irony – powerful agents ah **** it. Point is, either way, they’re powerless to do much damage, if any at all – too small, too insignificant, merely the ligament between the whatever.
In TDKR however… this stuff makes the off-screen world so large, it’s literally slipping out of your grasp like a really huge piece of soap.

With a few exceptions… like the whole bit with the Congressman – man does it revive that old charm again! Arrives at the bar, with stubble and Hawaiian shirt, barely shows his face and quickly forgotten for the rest of the scene... and then that ****ing punchline
Awesome to say the least.

Quote:

and keeps the story ahead of us.

Behind, is more like it. Sideways maybe – anything but “ahead”. TDKR I mean

Quote:

All of the movies are standalone films that complete a thematic trilogy.

True… to an extent, but not really – 2nd part is much closer to the 1st than the 3rd to either of them; ignoring the League of Shadows plot (and boy does it ignore it), all it does is adding a new story on top of continuing the old one; not even that – it continues the old one, developing it naturally, and then “focuses” the conflicts arising from that through those new characters that come out of nowhere.
They’re still fighting the mob, still fighting corruption – but now it’s about the promised escalation (“personified” by the Joker – that’s who the mob turns to) as well as the positive effect Batman’s had on the city’s morale (…), and the former obviously tries to do what’s it there for in the first place: nipping said morale in the bud.
What’s new is that this “escalation” actually turns out to be a madman out to disprove morality altogether… partially/mainly by destroying said morale and its representative.
And Dent's obviously got his gimmicks like "making his own luck" and backstory exposition that also don't necessarily have to do with described "thematic" role. Yea, once the characters have grown out of the story, sure they do go on to do a bit (or a lot) of their own stuff, as well

TDKR, on the other hand, doesn’t really continue anything; instead, it invents a completely new point A to set up its eponymous point B (replacing the better version that is the previous movie), and then picks up on on old threads like Harvey or the LoS, although even those with visible flaws – the former see previous post, and the latter really cool except for the revenge plot, but slightly hampered by the former.
Ironically, while being the most “separated” of the threesome, it also tries hardest to reconnect them all with reminders and flashbacks, in order to seemingly bring all them threads to one final conclusion – which ironically weakens the “it’s its own story!” excuse in addition to everything else

Quote:

Yes, there are strong plot threads connecting them, but each film really is a different genre so some plot points become more/less important in each film.

The DK series is an interesting case in that regard, almost being a “triumvirate” of a trilogy in the sense that each pair has a specific connection that makes the respective other stand alone by itself.
It’s really a topic for another thread (which it doesn’t deserve), but basically:
-1 and 2 have the fight against the mob as its central conflict, corrupt police, Alfred as the retired badass with the "hard advice" who's "more invested in Batman than Batman himself" -Christophr Nolan, and basically all the other set pieces that eventually fall victim to TDKR’s “retool”. And all the crowds of extras aside, none of them were really the “epic” fireworks with armies beating each other to a pulp at its climax and a lot of "this is it, folks" scattered around the general area that number three obviously was.
-2 and 3 are the closest stylistically – both being semi-“nightmarish” pieces with a mysterious, creepy villain in a mask spending the first half of the movie unpredictably appearing in midst of the scene while underestimated by heroes and “employers” alike, and then unleashing a plan involving plunging the city into violent chaos in the 2nd, accompanied by the aforementioned “choppy”, slightly idiosyncratic editing and presentation style.
Begins had a much more straightforward (as well as square) feel to it, but instead was full of “gothic” stylistic elements like the fear toxin, the Narrows (what? based on a real place? whatever) and of course the bats – all dropped by both sequels in favour of a drier “realistic” style.
-1 and 3 are obviously both about the League of Shadows, which Dark Knight methodically ignores, and has parts taking place in “exotic” Eastern lands in which Bruce “rises” in order to reappear in his city and rattle the cages of oppression / right in time to stop a WMD.

So yea, I know all of their parallels and differences, and different genres – 3rd is the most “removed” of them all, and doesn’t really benefit from that circumstance.

Quote:

I get that 8 years was too much for some people to swallow and I respect that, but it seemed to fit the epic tone they were going for to me.

The effects of those years are the crux of the issue, not their number, but yea – you’re right in one regard, it does seem to work for the whole “long peacetime, dwindling worries… and then BAM! devil comes to collect your soul” angle it’s going for, and how could it not? That’s this film’s central ark, after all! And certain cracks (noticeable, grating cracks, unlike arguably TDK which used sleights of hand to distract from most of them – took time for the Bruce/Rachel bs, and, well, look where that got it) aside, it does execute its “finally comes out of hiding, swiftly falls, rises up again” structure pretty engagingly. Unlike something like Matrix Revolutions, you’re not sitting there during the big climax, wondering when the promised pay-offs and exciting developments will show up already – no, once (forcibly) separated from the TDK mood, you’re pretty much pumped to see Bane’s plan (mostly just Bane though) and defeat, and by the time it builds up to the climax, the cry of the previous movie’s ending montage is a but a distant shadow… cause it’s got its own annoying stuff to distract you at the moment, that other stuff comes back once you’re finished ;p

And, well, now it’s finished and why did it let down Dark Knight, man

Quote:

The events and aftermath of TDK becomes a part of the history of this world, rather than platform for continued plot developments.

Exactly what I’ve been saying – but how is that a good thing? TDK was SCREAMING for its pay-offs and naturally following developments/continuation – that’s where a great bulk of excitement for a sequel came from, after all.
Had it not been, this “new story picking up way after” might’ve been sweet. This way, it only disregards, wastes, forgets.
Building a nice thing on top of it? Sure – but still building it on sand essentially

Quote:

They respected TDK by not making TDK 2

The only thing I see that applying to is the Joker – and in his case, creating this strange void of silence around him even kinda works in an uncanny sort of way. It’s like he’s left too much of a trauma… or alternatively, has been “forgotten” like a night spook, implying that the aftermath he left behind mattered more to these sane people than the random raving madman behind them.
Either way, the “respect” angle seems blatantly obvious in his case. With the rest, it rather seems like they *thought* they were respecting it, but through a series of misconceptions and miscalculations, instead achieved the exact opposite of that.
And the only instance where they DID try to do a “Dark Knight 2”, guess what: kept name-dropping Harvey for half of the movie, and totally botched it up

Yea, if I can agree with this sentiment in any way, it’s only in the sense of what Nolan’s been saying here and there about not having been certain initially if he really wanted to make a third one, and only eventually deciding to do so when he could think of a “proper story” to tell in it. So you can really see the first two as a sort of open-ended “duology”, with the third one as a kind of optional continuation Nolan and co. thought would be cool to add, if you want to include it – and easier to ignore and separate mentally if you don’t.
Had it been closer to TDK and kind of, somewhat gotten botched up, that might’ve been more difficult… then again I don’t have any such problems with Empire or Reloaded, so whatevs.

Re: Lol...if i didnīt know the critics and GAīs score for this movie...

As I've told milost recently, I'm not gonna get into a multiquote battle. I just have to make that clear now, because I'm much less interested in trying to prove anyone "wrong" point by point than I am merely trying to voice my own views on the movie in as concise a way as possible...so that maybe, just maybe people will stop feeling the need to perform tedious autopsies on this movie in an attempt to prove something and will realize that it's all just opinion. The point by point route is a tennis match that can go on forever, so if dissecting my posts in such a way makes you feel like you've got the upper hand...by all means, continue doing it.

Bottom line, we're back to arguing that the Nolans misunderstood their own movie and that's just not something that I buy for a second. And the assumption that a movie more closely tied into the aftermath Knight would've been inherently better is nothing more than just that...an assumption and an opinion. Not one I necessarily agree with. And if that's not the movie the story the Nolans and Goyer felt interested in telling, is that somehow wrong? Would we have rather seen someone else's version of a more direct TDK followup than Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises? I guess for some the answer would be yes.

I do however kind of agree that the first two form a sort of duology, with the third film coming in as its own thing while being a conclusion to those movies. The way it blends elements of the first two (very different) movies together makes it all come together in a very classic trilogy sort of way for me though.

Anyway justpassinby, you strike me as a "writer type" seeing as you referenced tvtropes. So hey, I respect your views and I'm sorry if I was treating you like a troll earlier...though you kind of make it hard to tell for sure sometimes. But I want to address one thing you said...about how TDKR works as you're watching but only leaves you disappointed after. No, see that's not how it was at all for me. It had thoroughly convinced me of the worth of the story that they chose to tell, so by the time it was all said and done, worrying about how the setup of the movie followed the conclusion of TDK was one of the furthest things from my mind. Though, I still felt like the movie overall was an appropriate follow-up and trilogy capper Or "optional" trilogy capper if you will (though I feel it's quite necessary thematically regardless of how you feel about the plot).

Re: Lol...if i didnīt know the critics and GAīs score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

As I've told milost recently, I'm gonna get into a multiquote battle. I just have to make that clear now, because I'm much less interested in trying to prove anyone "wrong" point by point than I am merely trying to voice my own views on the movie in as concise a way as possible...so that maybe, just maybe people will stop feeling the need to perform tedious biopsies on this movie in an attempt to prove something and will realize that it's all just opinion. The point by point route is a tennis match that can go on forever, so if dissecting my posts in such a way makes you feel like you've got the upper hand...by all means, continue doing it.

1) Your general demeanor is way too argumentative, defensive, and passive-aggressive in order to pass for a "just speaking my mind outside of silly debate context".
2) Multi-quotes =/= wanting to win/being less concise. It's just that when you respond to something that has multiple points in it (and those consisting of more individual elements themselves), one very practical way to deal with that properly is... breaking it down.
People claimiing how paragraph-by-paragraph debating makes it all worse and confusing, losing the larger points out of sight... lol on the contrary. And if those paragraphs add up to that larger point, which isn't always there... no worries, that's hard to go unnoticed, and then there's a train of thought running through the responses as well
3) The realm we're generally breathing in here is "demonstrable opinions". Pure sentiments like "I dig this because it made me feel this" are being shared on some other thread, some other forum - right now, all these recent debates about TDKR are about points, arguments, argued evaluations of such, and using facts such as backstage info for proof / determining the whole thesis. Yes, there's a strong subjective component to it (as I said in those comments that changed your life), but a great deal of tangible objectivity as well.

Why? Because you lay claim to it - with stuff like "oh god now you convinced me", as well as generally using objectivey arguments in your posts.
No need to backtrack now

Quote:

Bottom line, we're back to arguing that the Nolans misunderstood their own movie and that's just not something that I buy for a second.

Meh, it happens. Maybe he understood it while making it, but then lost the thread afterwards?
Of course you could also argue that he didn't at all - but then I think to have some rather solid reasons for concluding he did, so if you wanna challenge it, pure subjectivity won't do... and is out of place anyway, cause ****'s getting tangible.
I don't have any problems with you liking every frame of Rises for whatever personal reasons/tastes, you know - after all I'd be a total douche if I did

Quote:

And the assumption that a movie more closely tied into the aftermath Knight would've been inherently better is nothing more than just that...an assumption and an opinion. Not one I necessarily agree with.

Um actually a bit more than that - what it is is a very stupid, fallacious argument. Good thing I never made it then
Yes, the general gist of what I (and others here) have been saying does go in that direction, but only for the reason that this "aftermath" was something TDK had set up, and also would've been a natural way of paying that off.

Not because of some "inherent" ******** - and I never said that there couldn't have been a way of doing that with the time gap (heck, one aspect is easy - have the Dent reveal play a bigger/central role in inducing the revolution ), think along the lines of 24, 4th season, or that a subversive, deconstructive thing couldn't have worked if it had been differently (as well as decisive and unapologetic about being that)... merely that it didn't succeed the way it was, and that the whole "let down DK" is the area where the engine rattling mainly seems to come from.

Quote:

I do however kind of agree that the first two form a sort of duology, with the third film coming in as its own thing while being a conclusion to those movies. The way it blends elements of the first two (very different) movies together makes it all come together in a very classic trilogy sort of way for me though.

That's the thing though - I don't see how it "concludes" those movies in any way except finishing Bats' career (although it technially already "ended" in/after DK didn't it - but this time seems kind of more decisive about it, especially since this time it's meant that way ); everything else it concludes (=actually pays off) seems to have been set up in the same movie, and the flashbacks and references really do seem to be the main thing that creates this connection.

Again, not saying it's a bad thing in itself - heck, if you're gonna have this kind of "distant follow-up", why not connect it that way to what came before, kind of reinforcing that "it's all in the past / memories now" angle inherent to such a concept? Just not crazy about the specifics of it

Quote:

Anyway justpassinby, you strike me as a "writer type" seeing as you referenced tvtropes.

What. Fanfiction.net is for writers - TV Tropes is analysis / mainstream nerd culture, in other words what we have here

Quote:

So hey, I respect your views and I'm sorry if I was treating you like a troll earlier...though you kind of make it hard to tell for sure sometimes. But I want to address one thing you said...about how TDKR works as you're watching but only leaves you disappointed after. No, see that's not how it was at all for me. It had thoroughly convinced me of the worth of the story that they chose to tell, so by the time it was all said and done, worrying about how the setup of the movie followed the conclusion of TDK was one of the furthest things from my mind. Though, I still felt like the movie overall was an appropriate follow-up and trilogy capper. Or "optional" trilogy capper if you will.

Fair enough. Me, I might've just been convinced had it told its own story better, but that's another topic. Should you decide to continue discussing the "follow-up" bit, feel free to post anytime

Re: Lol...if i didnīt know the critics and GAīs score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Wooden Alligator

Weren't the Chechen, Gambol, and the others at Maroni's meeting mob bosses? The fact that they were willing to pool resources to survive Batman's war shows that he was booking it between BB and TDK.

When they "sprang the money trap", it wasn't clear how much of the mob had been still left intact - two bosses dead, one injured and possibly dead, with a bunch of successors or maybe competing organizations ready to fill the void, so probably was still some work to do.
That kind of left it open both for a "still fighting the mob" scenario for a sequel, as well as the "well yea they finished the work without much further trouble" they went with eventually.

Re: Lol...if i didnīt know the critics and GAīs score for this movie...

Alright justpassinby, since this post was more of a personal response to me, out of respect I'll do this the old fashioned way. Don't get used to this though!

Quote:

Originally Posted by justpassinby

1) Your general demeanor is way too argumentative, defensive, and passive-aggressive in order to pass for a "just speaking my mind outside of silly debate context".

Don't take it too personally. Lately I've just grown very tired of debating this movie in the standard point by point formula, because I feel everything's been argued and refuted in one way or another. I've been having super detailed debates with posters like The Joker, milost and Shikaramu for months and months now, and I'm at a point where I'm more or less spent. So just look at it from my point of view...all of a sudden a guy with a low post count comes in guns blazing, breaking down posts I made weeks ago, if not over a month ago. So yeah, I got a little passive aggressive because I'm just so weary about entering a debate with yet another new poster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by justpassinby

2) Multi-quotes =/= wanting to win/being less concise. It's just that when you respond to something that has multiple points in it (and those consisting of more individual elements themselves), one very practical way to deal with that properly is... breaking it down.
People claimiing how paragraph-by-paragraph debating makes it all worse and confusing, losing the larger points out of sight... lol on the contrary. And if those paragraphs add up to that larger point, which isn't always there... no worries, that's hard to go unnoticed, and then there's a train of thought running through the responses as well

I understand and get that, but personally I'm more interested in taking the discussion to a more macro level than debating the micro because the latter has been done ad nauseum. And I feel like my posts usually do have a pretty clear point to them, so I'm trying to keep it all streamlined for you too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by justpassinby

3) The realm we're generally breathing in here is "demonstrable opinions". Pure sentiments like "I dig this because it made me feel this" are being shared on some other thread, some other forum - right now, all these recent debates about TDKR are about points, arguments, argued evaluations of such, and using facts such as backstage info for proof / determining the whole thesis. Yes, there's a strong subjective component to it (as I said in those comments that changed your life), but a great deal of tangible objectivity as well.

Why? Because you lay claim to it - with stuff like "oh god now you convinced me", as well as generally using objectivey arguments in your posts.
No need to backtrack now

Oh, of course there's a huge element to these debates of both sides wanting to "objectively" corner the other side, but the problem I've found is that it just goes on forever. The more objectivity you throw at the debate, the more subjective it gets. Because often on this movie people can't even agree that A is A and B is B. The moments in the film that some people think are great are the very moments that others think are bad (IE your first response to me where you criticized the Gordon/Blake scene).

Quote:

Originally Posted by justpassinby

Meh, it happens. Maybe he understood it while making it, but then lost the thread afterwards?
Of course you could also argue that he didn't at all - but then I think to have some rather solid reasons for concluding he did, so if you wanna challenge it, pure subjectivity won't do... and is out of place anyway, cause ****'s getting tangible.
I don't have any problems with you liking every frame of Rises for whatever personal reasons/tastes, you know - after all I'd be a total douche if I did

The thing is, I just don't see why making creative choices to move forward in a way different than expected denotes an author misunderstanding their own prior work. TDK as a whole needed to be followed up, not just the supposed cliffhanger (which I never thought was a cliffhanger, more of an ambiguous ending that left them room to go plenty of directions). In Nolan's own words, the ending of TDK left us hanging with regards to Bruce's story- which is true. The decision to make Bruce no longer Batman at the start of the next film immediately sets it up as a bookending "Bruce Wayne's journey" film, which is exactly what the film needed to be in order to properly end the story that began in 2005, IMO. Could this have been done with him still active? Sure. But the idea that the Dent lie ends up cleaning up Gotham while Bruce's (and Gordon's) soul is still rotting is just too rich to pass up. This is the main reason I see it as a valid continuation of the story...it's all about consequences, and it feels appropriate that the ending of TDK has positive surface repercussions for the city and negative internal repercussions for Bruce and Gordon. And on top of that it puts Bruce in this "lost" state, feeling useless, similar to how he was that the start of BB...adding to this feeling of things coming full circle. This is not to say that it's the only way the story could have continued, but I don't see it as any more or less valid than the alternatives. If Nolan's biggest crime here is retroactively turning a cliffhanger into a non-cliffhanger...well, as I said I don't even necessarily agree with that in the first place, and even if I did it still wouldn't bother me because the movie I got was better than the one I had been envisioning in my head for four years. To me the biggest crime they could have committed was having the lie accomplish nothing tangible or play no factor in the story. It would reduce the ending of TDK to a bunch of wishy washy mumbo jumbo and a sacrifice that doesn't end up making all that much sense in the grand scheme of things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by justpassinby

What. Fanfiction.net is for writers - TV Tropes is analysis / mainstream nerd culture, in other words what we have here

Re: Lol...if i didnīt know the critics and GAīs score for this movie...

Quote:

Don't take it too personally.

Not taking it "personally" - it's more like a thing I've seen pretty much from every defender (not every defender is an apologist; the ones here seemed to be though) here, and, well, let's just say that motivated me to respond a little bit more

Quote:

...all of a sudden a guy with a low post count comes in guns blazing, breaking down posts I made weeks ago, if not over a month ago.

Ah, sorry, was it the Reese thread? I just kinda went through the whole thread, trying to reply to the stuff not covered by other responders... did I treat on covered ground there?

And fanfiction for aspiring critics
Just talking about their main focuses you know.

Quote:

The moments in the film that some people think are great are the very moments that others think are bad (IE your first response to me where you criticized the Gordon/Blake scene).

Hm, and I kind of thought I'd made quite an accomodating / considering opposite perspectives and values synthesis of sorts in this post... was it hidden too well?

Quote:

The thing is, I just don't see why making creative choices to move forward in a way different than expected denotes an author misunderstanding their own prior work.

Sorry if I still respond in fragments?
Okay, again, I think I pretty much just said I WASN'T saying the mere fact of going in unexpected directions was a wrong thing.

Quote:

which I never thought was a cliffhanger, more of an ambiguous ending that left them room to go plenty of directions

Not a cliffhanger, no, but it kind of set the tone for what was gonna happen in this "next phase", which was then unceremoniously left out, that was my point.

Quote:

The decision to make Bruce no longer Batman at the start of the next film immediately sets it up as a bookending "Bruce Wayne's journey" film, which is exactly what the film needed to be in order to properly end the story that began in 2005, IMO. Could this have been done with him still active? Sure. But the idea that the Dent lie ends up cleaning up Gotham while Bruce's (and Gordon's) soul is still rotting is just too rich to pass up. This is the main reason I see it as a valid continuation of the story...it's all about consequences, and it feels appropriate that the ending of TDK has positive surface repercussions for the city and negative internal repercussions for Bruce and Gordon. And on top of that it puts Bruce in this "lost" state, feeling useless, similar to how he was that the start of BB...adding to this feeling of things coming full circle. This is not to say that it's the only way the story could have continued, but I don't see it as any more or less valid than the alternatives. If Nolan's biggest crime here is retroactively turning a cliffhanger into a non-cliffhanger...well, as I said I don't even necessarily agree with that in the first place, and even if I did it still wouldn't bother me because the movie I got was better than the one I had been envisioning in my head for four years. To me the biggest crime they could have committed was having the lie accomplish nothing tangible or play no factor in the story. It would reduce the ending of TDK to a bunch of wishy washy mumbo jumbo and a sacrifice that doesn't end up making all that much sense in the grand scheme of things.

1) You seem to be saying that since TDK "ended" the larger chapter, it made sense to leave that book end be and start anew, correct?
That’s the thing though - I don't see how TDK "ended" that storyline; more like showed the “beginning of the end”; and while without a sequel on the horizon, it would've really been a worthy closure, in a “what, unfinished stories are a bad thing? since when?” kinda way – leaving at its very peak, not giving it the chance to become a villain – but once the continuation is included in the picture, well, that conclusion suspended in the air still hasn’t gone anywhere has it

*And*, that conclusion, or a comparable development, was something that movie’s conclusion had totally built up to! So, what seems like the more natural thing to do… paying off the thing, or unceremoniously skipping it with the sentiment that eh, wasn’t all it was cracked up to be anyway.

I repeat: that totally awesome thing that got you pumped to see the sequel more than anything else – wasn’t all that hot anyways. So while, without TDKR, it’s something really cool and unknown about to happen on zhe horizon, once you include it? Suddenly, meh, nothing really – they cleaned up the streets kind of, and it must’ve been pretty uneventful!

Now can it at least be established that it IS a loss, and a waste, before starting to measure it with whatever advantages this move brought with it?

2) One of those seems to be that it’s a way to better acknowledge the impact those ugly events had on Bruce and Gordon… okay, or what about back then when it was still fresh? Yes - on the one hand, showing how the trauma still persists after 8 years, does help give it more gravity…. but then again a long time has passed since then, and other things grown on top of it.
Gordon is also exhausted by his police work, and then his family left him (oops! sure hope they’re still friends… or they were like “hey, so you finish there and come along right?”, cause man), and for Bruce it was obviously the failed energy project that gave him the final kick to disappear.

So really – increasing the gravity, or rather muddying the waters?

3) Bring it to full circle? Oh but in order to “bring it” to the full circle, it actually has to *bring it*… to the circle… doesn’t it. Not just skip to the full circle… but bring it. And what it does in actuality is just more or less revert to the same state from in the 1st movie in order to rehash that story arc. Well what kind of "circle" is that supposed to be? More like a broken record
Remember that Bruce has already “fallen only to pick himself up again” at least once in each of the previous movies, as well as this one actually – only there, it was actually SHOWN happening! How is that important?
Well, a guy who tries to climb up a rock, then falls down, but after a moment of despair starts climbing again with renewed determination and finally comes out on top – that’s just good drama. But let’s imagine he’s climbing it, let’s say the 2nd time now, and, after mastering a particularly difficult passage, causing him to drop half of his equipment and provisions but still going on in spite of that, soon reaches a point where the rock starts becoming interesting… assuming shapes, shades of colors, and looking up at the top, it almost seems like some sort of shimmering, exotic landscape takes over from there; the top isn’t very far now…
… next shot, he sits back at the bottom again, depressed and disinterested, and it takes a considerable time for him to even get convinced to take up the rock again, cause why man? and even when he starts climbing again, he kind of doesn’t want to, almost wants to fail, and, of course, that’s exactly what he does – falls again, lies around for another period of time, and eventually makes it – but by that time, autumn’s set in, and that landscape has sort of withered and doesn’t look all that great overall, either.
And why did he give up back then? Eh – dropping his equipment must’ve really gotten to him after all, what else? That’s TDKR in a shell

4) Now in conclusion, all of that seems to take a backseat anyway because what the movie ended up delivering, was totally worth all those downsides (even if they were downsides - or maybe just appealing for *not* going the *natural* way, and feeing jarring). Fine… that more has to do with the movie’s internal quality then, a bit of different topic from this one, but not seeing anything wrong with the concept for now.
And we seem to agree on Dent, so there’s at least that

Re: Lol...if i didnīt know the critics and GAīs score for this movie...

Justpassinby, your posts are too friggin long. No offense, but I don't feel like reading massive novels for every single post I see on these threads. From what ive read, I still disagree with most of what you're saying. I will never budge on my feelings toward the trilogy, specifically The Dark Knight Rises.

__________________"Every time you open that dvd box to watch the Dark Knight, it's actually a slice of baloney. the real movie is in your mind and Nolan performed an Inception on all of us." - tacit-ronin-

Re: Lol...if i didnīt know the critics and GAīs score for this movie...

When I think about it, TDK's sequel couldn't have begun with Batman on the run, active as an outlaw while there's more freaks and criminals running around. So Batman is more villainous than the freaks/criminals/mob now? No that doesn't work. He's on the level with all of them? That could work, but then why is he active?? Why is he around at all if he cant take them down without being looked at as a hero? He's not supposed to show his heroism, that's why he need to stop taking down criminals in front of people after TDK. But then you say, you cant have mobsters and freaks running around with batman not doing anything. And that's correct, this is why TDKR makes sense.

Nolan says for TDK ending to mean something, for the lie to mean anything, it needs to work. For it to work, Batman needs to be viewed as the villain. Villains don't go around helping people or taking down baddies. This is why he's retired, even though he's still miserable and not moving on like the rest of Gotham.

For this to happen they obviously thought "we cant have villains roaming around with Batman retired, it doesn't seem right". Even TDKReturns tapped into that and I personally like it for the story but not for any other interpretation. If there's mobsters and freaks in Gotham, Batman has to be there.

Which is one of the reasons why the Dent Act was put into the story, I imagine. The other thing is if the lie worked, then Dent would become the ultimate hero of Gotham City. A MASSIVE hero. I can imagine a holiday for the man or a new prison in his name, things like this. And that's what happened. Just like Batman got a statue and God knows what else once he is revealed as the true hero.

As for the full circle talk? To say that it's just lazy and doing something over again, doesn't understand the poetry in callbacks and bringing things around again, almost in a destiny kind of way. Perhaps it's your beliefs, but this is why LOST is one of my favorite shows of all time and despite the controversial final season (reminds anyone of Rises?..) I loved it. All the full circle callbacks were emotional and yes it has a lot to do with "destiny".

Nolan says he didn't want to follow TDK with some other episodic story for Batman to deal with. 1 year on, 8 years on whatever fighting Riddler or some other villain like nothing ever happened in the previous film. Like Batman is just the villain like Riddler. Closing the chapter the way they chose to, bringing things full circle to Begins like a true trilogy should? That is far more interesting.

Im happy with what I got. If I want a different approach, ill get it with the reboot which im sure will be more visually appealing but not as well written. And yes I view Rises as a well written film. I still think it's the strongest Batman movie to date. Don't care WHAT ANYBODY says against me. I am NOT budging on my views. No man or woman has the ability to do that.

There. That was long, but only like 1/4 of the length of posts justpassinby delivers

__________________"Every time you open that dvd box to watch the Dark Knight, it's actually a slice of baloney. the real movie is in your mind and Nolan performed an Inception on all of us." - tacit-ronin-

Re: Lol...if i didnīt know the critics and GAīs score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by shauner111

Justpassinby, your posts are too friggin long. No offense, but I don't feel like reading massive novels for every single post I see on these threads. From what ive read, I still disagree with most of what you're saying. I will never budge on my feelings toward the trilogy, specifically The Dark Knight Rises.

Well can't blame ya on that one (sometimes, you know, I just outdo myself), but I did bloody say in one of them that I don't care to challenge anyone's "feelings" about these movies didn't I

Re: Lol...if i didnīt know the critics and GAīs score for this movie...

Quote:

Originally Posted by shauner111

When I think about it, TDK's sequel couldn't have begun with Batman on the run,

And that's how you tell the hardcore apologists from reasonable supporters

Quote:

active as an outlaw while there's more freaks and criminals running around. So Batman is more villainous than the freaks/criminals/mob now? No that doesn't work. He's on the level with all of them? That could work, but then why is he active?? Why is he around at all if he cant take them down without being looked at as a hero? He's not supposed to show his heroism, that's why he need to stop taking down criminals in front of people after TDK.

A semi-clever argument, flawed only by the assumption that Batman can't work on fixing things if he doesn't also make an impression on the public. What do you think of, after all, when you hear "a silent guardian, dark protector" or something along those lines? Someone who lurks in the shadows and protects without you even knowing, that's what.
COULD they have done something like this, maybe in contrast with the "I have to make headlines" MO from before? Yes - they could have.

The second assumption is that somehow the plan is hinging on him not being a good guy. Um, okay, maybe you need some suspension of disbelief in order to buy that conspiracy scenario, its feasibility, believability or necessity, but come on - let's not overdo it shall we? Convincing the public of him being outright villainous, or a greedy criminal, after all the things he's done, would seem absurd.
He's lost his heroic status, the "look not a single corpse and all delivered to the cops!" headlines from before, and become an unstable element, a crazyperson you wouldn't want to cross in a dark alley - maybe a sociopath only being heroic half of the time; or he just snapped at some point. But he's BEEN doing good things before, so why can't he keep doing them now?
Yes, better catch the ticking time bomb regardless, but the public won't start scratching its collective monkey cranium just because Batman's taken out another thug... a thug?? A murderous thug like yourself, John!!1

Quote:

Nolan says for TDK ending to mean something, for the lie to mean anything, it needs to work. For it to work, Batman needs to be viewed as the villain.

Nope
I mean Garcia calls him a "murderous thug", but doing one horrible deed is enough to get you that title no matter how much arbitrary good you do otherwise.
So no one's gonna raise a brow at him... wait I'm going in circles.

Quote:

Villains don't go around helping people or taking down baddies.

But come on now! This Gotham's population doesn't seem as stupid as Burton's, surely they wouldn't just sit there and swallow such an outrageous retcon? They know Batman's been fighting thugs before... MNBAHEGFCASHGF

Quote:

For this to happen they obviously thought "we cant have villains roaming around with Batman retired, it doesn't seem right". Even TDKReturns tapped into that and I personally like it for the story but not for any other interpretation. If there's mobsters and freaks in Gotham, Batman has to be there.

They weren't there because the three state powers cleaned up the streets - thanks to what Dent did at the beginning of TDK and, presumably, his posthumous role model occupation.
THAT was the main point of the conspiracy, not Batman being a villain - he was just the only scapegoat they could think of pinning it on.

Quote:

Which is one of the reasons why the Dent Act was put into the story, I imagine. The other thing is if the lie worked, then Dent would become the ultimate hero of Gotham City. A MASSIVE hero. I can imagine a holiday for the man or a new prison in his name, things like this. And that's what happened. Just like Batman got a statue and God knows what else once he is revealed as the true hero.

The Dent Act... seemed like a somewhat murky plot device to me, but the rest, yea, that's pretty much what was to be expected.

Quote:

As for the full circle talk? To say that it's just lazy and doing something over again,

Didn't pay attention again. I wasn't saying it's wrong to bring things around, only that doing it completely off-screen was lame and ruined the impact.
It has to do with storytelling... crescendos... arcs.. structures... climaxes, those kinds of things.
If you wanna have another "rise from the bottom", better justify (i.e. not just explain away, but lead up to properly) why you're at the bottom again. Then it's cool.

Quote:

Perhaps it's your beliefs, but this is why LOST is one of my favorite shows of all time and despite the controversial final season (reminds anyone of Rises?..) I loved it. All the full circle callbacks were emotional and yes it has a lot to do with "destiny".

The only thing I can find in common with Rises is the twist that did away with a really cool scenario and replaced it with something lamer.
That, and maybe a general sense of "misunderstanding" what made those previous things - incl. those "called back to", but that's where the similarities end already because I can't see anything wrong with the callbacks in Rises

Quote:

Nolan says he didn't want to follow TDK with some other episodic story for Batman to deal with. 1 year on, 8 years on whatever fighting Riddler or some other villain like nothing ever happened in the previous film. Like Batman is just the villain like Riddler. Closing the chapter the way they chose to, bringing things full circle to Begins like a true trilogy should? That is far more interesting.

Okay, not gonna retread covered ground here... seriously I've so ****ing dealt with these points not one page ago

Only thing I might repeat here, is that the things TDKR concluded with were almost exclusively things set up in TDKR, not in the previous ones. Ahead of LOST in that regard, however, seeing as how Bruce Wayne's struggles with his bad mood at least had been the focus of story from the outset, whereas LOST kind of forced that angle on its conclusion.

Quote:

I still think it's the strongest Batman movie to date.

Okay, so stuff like the sudden sex scene or clean slate MacGuffins or Bruce being a douche to Alfred, or Batman's open mouth didn't annoy you? Just curious - because that's kind of the stuff I constantly keep running against just as I want to enjoy Rises on its own merits.

Quote:

Don't care WHAT ANYBODY says against me. I am NOT budging on my views. No man or woman has the ability to do that.

Now careful there - if you keep saying things like this out loud, some people might just start thinking of you as an insecure fanboy, and why would you want that?

Those are just basic rules to follow... you never go ATM... nver go FR... and never jump up on a rock, proudly grab your chest, and verily proclaim to the world that never shall anyone change what you are, and take it away from you, never shall you bow, and forever keep on to your heart no matter what they say, glaring fervently into the uncertain but bright future.
Oh, and saying "haha" on the internet is a no-go, as well. Welcome to the webs - I'll be your guide